Ecology and Management of Avian Botulism on the Canadian Prairies

Recommendations

Info

114Table 3. Annual <strong>and</strong> lake-specific probability estimates for presence <strong>of</strong> spores (PS), production<strong>of</strong> botulinum toxin (PT a ) <strong>and</strong> maggots (PM), <strong>and</strong> the product <strong>of</strong> these three probabilities(PS*PT*PM). Also shown are density <strong>of</strong> toxic carcasses on a wetl<strong>and</strong> (corrected carcass density)<strong>and</strong> survival probability for radio-marked moulting mallards.Lake, Province Year PS PT PM PS*PT*PMCorrectedcarcass densitySurvivalprobabilityWhitewater, MB 1999 1.0 0.80 1.0 0.80 3.94 0.0462000 1.0 0.70 1.0 0.70 Not known Not known2001 0.95 0.37 1.0 0.35 Not known Not knownKettlehut, SK 2000 0.93 0.27 1.0 0.25 3.23 0.5972001 0.15 0.33 1.0 0.05 0 1.0Paysen, SK 2000 0.83 0.53 0.43 0.19 1.23 0.5762001 0.70 0.21 0.95 0.14 0.77 0.886Frank, AB 2000 0.75 0.67 0.77 0.39 4.56 0.3692001 0.80 0.44 1.0 0.35 2.14 0.860Chaplin, SK 2001 0.40 0.12 0.5 0.02 0 0.962Boulder*, SK 2000 0.20 0.33 1.0 0.07 0 ~1.0Lucky*, SK 1999 0.26 0.25 1.0 0.07 0 ~1.0Indi*, SK 2001 0 0 1.0 0.00 0 ~1.02003 0.17 0 1.0 0.00 0 ~1.0Brightwater*, SK 2003 0.38 0 1.0 0.00 0 ~1.0Old Wives, SK 1999 0.90 0.41 1.0 0.37 6.57 0.043Eyebrow, SK 1999 1.0 0.47 1.0 0.47 2.97 0.3862003 1.0 0.15 1.0 0.15 Not known Not knownCrane, SK 2000 0.92 0.50 1.0 0.46 3.41 0.486abProportion <strong>of</strong> toxic carcasses that contain maggots with concentrations > 1000 minimum lethal dose.MB = Manitoba; SK = Saskatchewan; AB = Alberta.* Lakes with no previous history <strong>of</strong> botulism.
115Table 4. Lake-adjusted associations between risk factors <strong>and</strong> the 30-day probability <strong>of</strong> dying<strong>of</strong> botulism.VariableRegressioncoefficient (β)95% ConfidenceInterval for βLowerUpperP-valueQuasi LikelihoodunderIndependenceModel Criterion(QIC value)Unconditionalmodels:PS 4.87 1.80 7.95 0.002PT 3.20 1.07 8.71 0.003Carcass Density 0.50 0.15 0.84 0.005Main effects <strong>and</strong>interaction (#1:) 514PS -0.93 -5.02 3.16 0.660PT -8.28 -18.34 1.79 0.110Carcass Density 0.57 0.14 1.00 0.010PS*PT 13.22 3.05 23.39 0.011Main effect(#2): 1,535Density 0.90 0.47 1.33 0.000Intercept only 4,912Pseudo R 2 for model #1: (4,912-514)/4,912 = 0.90Pseudo R 2 for model #2: (4,912-1,535)/4,912 = 0.69Comparison <strong>of</strong> Pseudo R 2 : (0.90-0.69)/0.90 = 0.23
Page 1:
Ecology an
Page 4 and 5:
iiThe model of bot
Page 6 and 7:
ivTABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMAR
Page 8 and 9:
2Research from the 1970s supported
Page 10 and 11:
4(Coburn and Quort
Page 12 and 13:
6could potentially serve as substra
Page 14 and 15:
8additional lakes and</stro
Page 16 and 17:
10challenge because management assu
Page 18 and 19:
12Rocke TE, Bollinger TK. 2007. <st
Page 20 and 21:
14Table 1. Names and</stron
Page 22 and 23:
16PART IEFFICACY OF CARCASS CLEAN-U
Page 24 and 25:
18Our objectives were to determine:
Page 26 and 27:
20marked carcasses potentially avai
Page 28 and 29:
22Intensive search studyOn 18 Augus
Page 30 and 31:
24if extrapolated to Whitewater Lak
Page 32 and 33:
26Table 1. Characteristics
Page 34 and 35:
28Table 3. Number of</stron
Page 36 and 37:
30Table 5. Estimates of</st
Page 38 and 39:
Figure 2. Map of W
Page 40 and 41:
Figure 4. Variation of</str
Page 42 and 43:
36PART IISURVIVAL OF RADIO-MARKED M
Page 44 and 45:
38two lakes were subjected to carca
Page 46 and 47:
40NecropsiesDead birds were include
Page 48 and 49:
42were right censored. One hundred
Page 50 and 51:
44design, possibly with a treatment
Page 52 and 53:
46Rocke TE, Bollinger TK. 2007. <st
Page 54 and 55:
48Table 2. Models used to assess ef
Page 56 and 57:
50Table 4. Models used to evaluate
Page 58 and 59:
52INTRODUCTIONMaggot-laden carcasse
Page 60 and 61:
54among categories after creating a
Page 62 and 63:
56LITERATURE CITEDBurnham KP, Ander
Page 64 and 65:
58Table 2. Candida
Page 66 and 67:
60PART IVLATE-SUMMER SURVIVAL OF MA
Page 68 and 69:
62In each year of
Page 70 and 71: 64Recovery rate comparisons - 1999D
Page 72 and 73: 66between the present study <strong
Page 74 and 75: 68Table 1. Number of</stron
Page 76 and 77: 70Table 3. Logistic analyses evalua
Page 78 and 79: 72Table 5. Direct recovery rates <s
Page 80 and 81: 741210ControlBotulism</stro
Page 82 and 83: 761614ControlBotulism</stro
Page 84 and 85: 78INTRODUCTIONAvian</strong
Page 86 and 87: 80(GPS) receivers (eTrex Venture, e
Page 88 and 89: 82mortality rate was calculated by
Page 90 and 91: 84samples from FG carcasses collect
Page 92 and 93: 86outbreaks in waterfowl (Table 4;
Page 94 and 95: 88birds and toxic
Page 96 and 97: 90LITERATURE CITEDBall G, Bollinger
Page 98 and 99: 92Williamson JL, Rocke TE, Aiken JM
Page 100 and 101: 94Table 2. Species composition <str
Page 102 and 103: 96Table 4. Estimates of</st
Page 104 and 105: 98iiviiiii1 0 1 2 km1 0 1 21 0 1 21
Page 106 and 107: 100PART VIVARIABILITY OF TYPE C CLO
Page 108 and 109: 102seasonal wetland</strong
Page 110 and 111: 104clinical signs of</stron
Page 112 and 113: 106RESULTSThe proportion of
Page 114 and 115: 108sediments in basins of</
Page 116 and 117: 110Williamson JL, Rocke TE, Aiken J
Page 118 and 119: 112Chaplin, SK botulism 3/5 (60) 1/
Page 122 and 123: 116MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDAT
Page 124 and 125: Recommendation 8:The model
Page 126 and 127: 120APPENDIX 1AVIAN BOTULISM IN ALBE
Page 128 and 129: 122July 15, 2002ISBN: 0-7785-0962-1
Page 130 and 131: 1242BackgroundMunro (1927) provides
Page 132 and 133: 1264SUMMARY OF ALBERTA BOTULISM OUT
Page 134 and 135: 128Moyles, D. 1989. Avian</
Page 136 and 137: 13081) 1980 (Calverley 1980)Appendi
Page 138 and 139: 1321010) 1990 (F&W files)LakeDetect
Page 140 and 141: 134123 probable blue-green algal po
Page 142 and 143: 136APPENDIX 2EXPOSURE OF MALLARD DU
Page 144 and 145: 138Toxin was administered orally us
Page 146: 140LITERATURE CITEDCarmichael WW, B
show all

Ecology and Management of Avian Botulism on the Canadian Prairies

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?